Blog

Last week, I posted the results of the MPP-commissioned poll showing that despite outrageousclaims being made by local officials, there is wide support for medical marijuana among Los Angeles County voters. A new poll now shows that support for medical marijuana access isn’t confined to Los Angeles.

A poll released Wednesday in San Diego found super-majority support for medical marijuana in that city. The poll — commissioned by addiction recovery Web siteÂ keepcomingback.com — found 77% agreement that “officials must make sure that San Diego’s medical marijuana patients have convenient access to their medicine in the city.” 70% support regulating the city’s medical marijuana collectives in some way, while only 9.5% support banning them (3% said they didn’t need any regulations). The poll also collected other interesting information about how San Diegans view medical marijuana sales. Read more about itÂ here.

This poll should send a firm message to San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who just last month ordered a series of shocking raids on local medical marijuana patients and suppliers.

Yesterday I posted a brief summary of a new study of vaporization of marijuana as an alternative to smoking. Since that original post, Iâve spoken to a couple of researchers about this study, and they raised a few points that seem worth sharing:

First, for reasons that arenât clear, before performing the tests of smoking and vaporization, the researchers put the marijuana through a drying procedure that ordinary marijuana consumers donât do. This might have eliminated some plant compounds, such as terpenoids, that are actually of interest.

A second possible flaw is that the researchers considered all âbyproductsâ â defined as substances other than cannabinoids —Â together. They didnât analyze precisely what they were, lumping bad stuff like the toxic combustion products contained in smoke with potentially beneficial plant compounds like those terpenoids mentioned above. That puts the finding that fewer byproducts were produced at 230 degrees Celsius than were produced at lower temperatures in a somewhat different perspective: We donât know if the same byproducts were produced at 230 degrees as were produced at lower temperatures â and whatâs in that mixture could be just as important as how much of it there is.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending a first-of-its kind hearing on the âlegalization and regulation of marijuana,â held in the California Assembly Committee on Public Safety. The three-hour hearing included testimony from experts who told the legislature that arresting adults for marijuana is a gross waste of police resources and that the only way to control marijuana is to end prohibition and institute regulations for its sale.

Witnesses advocating for reform included retired superior court judge James P. Gray and former San Francisco district attorney Terence Hallinan â both of whom have seen the futility of marijuana prohibition firsthand from inside the criminal justice system. Read the rest of this entry »

MPP’s Aaron Smith speaks in support of California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s bill to tax and regulate marijuana after a hearing to discuss the effects of the law when it passes. This was the first time that a legislative body has held hearings on the possibility of ending marijuana prohibition in California. 10/28/2009

Opponents of medical marijuana love to condemn smoking, but a new study adds more data to the growing pile of research confirming that vaporization provides the benefits of inhalation without the unwanted combustion products in smoke.Â In a study comparing vaporization to smoking in the journal Inhalation Toxicology, researchers from Leiden University report, âBased on the results, we can conclude that with the use of the vaporizer a much âcleanerâ and therefore a more healthy cannabis vapor can be produced for the medicinalÂ use of C. sativa, in comparison to the administration of THC via cigarettes.â

The article also provides some new practical information on vaporization, suggesting that a temperature of 230 degrees Celsius is ideal, and that using smaller amounts of marijuana in the vaporizer produces more vapor, but does not extract THC more efficiently, so there is no apparent gain in using an amount less than about half a gram at a time.

Today, the New Hampshire General Court narrowly failed to override Gov. John Lynchâs veto of HB 648, which would have made the Granite State the 14th in the nation to have an effective medical marijuana law.

Two-thirds majorities were needed in both the state House and Senate to override Lynchâs veto. The override passed in the House by a vote of 240-115, but came two votes shy in the Senate, which voted 14-10. Read the rest of this entry »

Today the California state Assembly will hold a historic hearing looking at whether marijuana prohibition should be replaced with a system of regulation and taxation. The growing push for change in California â which also includes a handful of ballot initiatives in circulation — was covered by this morningâs New York Times in an article that perhaps unintentionally reveals the feebleness of opponentsâ arguments.

The story quotes John Lovell, lobbyist for several California police groups and the major voice for maintaining prohibition: âWe get revenue from alcohol,â he said. âBut thereâs way more in social costs than we retain in revenues.â

If thatâs the best they can do, the debate is over. The main social cost of alcohol comes from its tendency to promote violent and aggressive behavior, something marijuana simply doesnât do, as explained in this article from the journal Addictive Behaviors. Not long ago, an independent panel of experts rated alcohol as significantly more dangerous than marijuana, in an article published in the prestigious journal The Lancet (unfortunately, the summary of the article you can read online for free doesnât include the chart ranking various drugs).

Congressman Sam Farr (D-Calif.) introduced the Truth In Trials Act of 2009 today (H.R. 3939), a bill that would give medical marijuana patients and providers the ability to argue in federal court that their actions were legal under state law.

Currently, a federal judge cannot consider state-level legality during a medical marijuana case. For example, Charles Lynch, a California resident who was on trial for operating a medical marijuana clinic that by all accounts operated in compliance with state law, was unable to defend himself by citing Californiaâs medical marijuana law. And consequently, Lynch received a year-long jail sentence. He’s just one of more than 100 people who were prosecuted under federal law during the Bush administration while being denied the right to defend themselves adequately in court.

The Truth In Trials Act would provide an affirmative defense for medical marijuana patients operating within the bounds of state law. If passed, it will protect patients and providers from disgraceful prosecutions in federal court.

While the Truth In Trials Act represents only a small step in the fight for substantive, national medical marijuana reforms, it will bring a fundamental fairness to federal medical marijuana trials. Please write your member of Congress and ask him or her to co-sponsor this bill. At MPPâs online action center, writing Congress is quick and easy.

Blogroll

Meta

The opinions expressed by our viewers and posters do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Marijuana Policy Project. These views are those of their individual authors alone. MPP does not condone or support the illegal use of marijuana. We do encourage open and frank discussion, but if a comment has been posted that is in some way significantly inappropriate, please email us at [email protected] to report it. Thank you, and we're looking forward to what you think!

"Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care. ... It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record."
DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young, Ruling in the matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, September 6, 1988